\6 

531 

»y 1 

/ 



Ji^ ^L 



VINDICATION 



VOLUME FIRST 



OK THK 



COLLECTIONS 



Jhe j^iermont |ji|;tonral jioriftu 



FnO>[ TIIK 



^ttacl\5 of the ^m Jjovli x{i5ttti;iciil lHagaziuc, 



BY IllLAXD HALL. 

KKii.M VdLUME 8KC0N'D OF TUB SOCIBTY'8 COLLECXrOXS. 



xMONTPELIER: 

J. & J. M. POLAND'S STEAM PRESS. 

1871. 



/ 



^ 



VERMONT HISTORICAL SOCIETY 

COLLECTIONS: 

Octavo, Tinted Paper, Two Volumes, published in 1870-71. 
Vol. I. 528 pages, avith Plates of eight Vermont Coins ; 
Vol. II. 558 pages, with a Portrait of Ira Allen. 



Price per volume,— boiiud in Cloth, or in Boards iiiieut: to Members of tlie Society whose 
fees are paid, $3— to all others $3.50. Orders filled by Chas. Reed, Montpelier. 



cojvtbjYTs OF" roz. i. 

VERMONT HISTORICAL SOCIETY : General Circular. Acts of the General Assembly 
incorporating- and concerning the Society. Constitution. By-Laws. Rules of Or- 
der for Meetings. Officers. Resident Membei-s. 

CONVENTIONS OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE NEW HAMPSHIRE GR.VNTS, in 
opposition to the claims of New York, 17G5 to 1777: — by Hiland Hall. Committees 
of Safety. Regiment of Green Mountain Boys. The Dorset Conventions of Jan. 16, 
•July 24, and Sept. 25, 1776. The Westminster Conventions of Oct. 30 1776 and .Tan. 15- 
1777. Vermont's Declaration of Independence. The Windsor Convention, June 4 
1777. Name "Vermont." Committee to repair to Ticonderoga. Proclamation for 
a Fast. The Windsor Convention of July 2 1777— Adoption of the Constitution : by 
Rev. Plinv H. White. 

MR. HUTCHINSON'S SERMON, before the Convention at Windsor, July 2d 1777. 

THE VISION OF JUNLFS THE BENNINGTONITE— 1777. 

SOME MISCELLANEOUS REMARKS AND SHORT ARGUMENTS on a small pamph- 
let, dated in the Convention of the Representatives of the State of New York, Oct. 2, 

1776, and sent from said Convention to tlie County of Cumberland ; and some reasons 
given why the District of tlie New Hampshire Grants had best be a State, — May,. 

1777. By lUA Allen. 

MISCELLANEOUS REIMARKS on tlie same subject,— Oct. 1777. By the same Author. 
NEW YORK LAND GRANTS IN VERMONT, 176.5-1770. By HiLAND HALL. 
THE INVASION Ol' BURGOYNE IN 1777. By Chakles Reed. 

CELEBRATION IN 1778 OF THE BENNINGTON VICTORY OF 1777, Speech : by NO- 
AH Smith, A. B. Poetical Essay ; by Stephex Jacob. 
PETITIONS TO THE KING, 1766. By Charles Reed. 
THE VERMONT COINAGE. By Rev. Edmund F. Slaftek, A. M. 
THE NATURAL AND POLITICAL HISTORY OF VERMONT— 171)8. By Ika Allex. 
INDEX TO ALLEN'S HISTORY. 
GENERAL INDEX. 

fltj= See page three of cover. 



VINDICATION 



VOLUME FIRST 



OK THE 



COLLECTIONS 



OF 



^hc ||iM'mont lyi^iorical jiocictp 



FROM TIIK 



^ttacl\$ of tlje "^m ^(^i\\ ^i$t0n(al }|jaDa:«ittt. 



BY IITLAND HALL. 

FKOM VOI.UMK SECOND OF THE SOOIKTY'S COLLKOTIONS. 



MONTPELTER: 

J. & J. ISr. POF.AND'S STEAM PRESS. 
187L 



/- 



^6 



V I N I> I C A T I O N 



In the former vohiinc of tlu-se Coli^fa'TIons, i)ul»lislie(l in 1S7(I, an 
attempt was made to embody in clironological order siicli autlientic ac- 
counts as could bo IVnuid of the proceedings of the difterent conventions 
of the inhabitants of the Xew Hampshire Grants, prior to the establish- 
ment of the state government of Vermont in 177S. Xo original journals 
of tliose conventions could be found, and information in regard to their 
proceedings was sought for in all quarters where it was thought it might 
be obtained. Among the soui'ces from which information was procured, 
were the fourth volume of the Documentary History of New York, the 
published journals of the New York Congress of 1775, the Connecticut 
Courant published at Hartford for the year 1777, Mr. Slades Vermont, 
State Papers, the manuscript papers in the ottices of the Secretaries of 
State at Albany and Montpelier, and a Manuscript copy, from what was 
believed to be an autlientic copy of the journals of several conventions in 
1770 and 1777. The sources from Avhich the accounts of these proceed- 
ings were obtained were distinctly indicated in the i)ublication itself, 
either by introductory statements or foot notes, so that the verification 
of each part, and the credit to which it was entitled, could be conveniently 
tested \}y historical students. 

The number of the New York Historical Magazine for January 1871, 
edited by Henry B. Dawson, Esq., contains a very sharp and bitter criti- 
cism on this part of the Society's volume, in which he assumes to have 
discovered numerous errors and falsehoods of so flagrant a character as, 
in his view, to justify him in making a charge of intended deception and 
fraud on the i)art of the Committee of Publication. He claims that tlii^ir 
work is not a fair account of actual proceedings, but is a '' reconstructed 
record" got up by the Connnittee for the purpose of placing the conduct 
of the Vermonters in their early controversy witli New York on a more 
favorable footing than their original proceedings would warrant, and that 
their publication is therefore '' entirely useless as an auUioriti/ in histori- 
cal en<piiry.'" This charge of fraud in the publication, if well founded, 
not only deprives it of historical authority, but ensures the just condemn- 
ation of the Committee of Publication !)}• all lovers of honesty and truth. 

The chronic propensity of Mr. Dawson to treat such opinions as do not 
coincide with his own, as founded in dishonesty and crime, must be well 
known to the readers of his maga/,ine, and some of them may have not- 



4 Vermont Historical Society Collections. 

iced that this propensity becomes peculiarly active and violent whenever 
any question of Vermont history is concerned. He has in his magazine 
haliitually sought to stigmatise Vermonters by branding them with oppro- 
brious epithets, calling them '' renegade Green Mountain Boys," " Seces- 
sionists," " Nullitiers," "traitors," "thieves," &c., &c., and it has also seemed 
impossible for him to notice the work of a Yermonter without, as in his 
present article, impugning the motives of the writer, misrepresenting his 
statements, and charging him with unfounded delinquencies.* This con- 
tinued exhibition of his bitter hostility, together Avith the seriousness of 
his present charge against the integrity of Yermont history, must be our 
apology for a somewhat extended examination of the grounds on which 
he founds his criticisms. 

Mr. Dawson commences his present strictures by stating that in their 
publication, the Society " employed a copy instead of the original manu- 
scripts.'''' It is true that copies only were employed, and for the reason 
which is fiiUy declared in their publication, that no originals could be 
found. Parts of the proceedings of several conventions were found in 
newspapers and in other publications, and in difterent manuscripts, as 
before stated, the most important of the latter being a copy of the pro- 
ceedings of several conventions, furnished by the Hon. James H. Phelps, 
of West Townshend, Yt., which manuscript and the use made of it are 
particvilarly mentioned in the publication itself. The copy, as Judge 
Pheli)s informed the Committee, was made by him in 1852 from the back 
part of an old account book in which Dr. Jonas Fay, who had been clerk 
of some of the conventions, had made charges against his patients for 
medical services. The book was in the possession of Judge Phelps l)ut 
a short time, and he was unable to give any certain account of what be- 
came of it, though he thought it might probably be found in the possess- 
ion of some of Dr. Pay's descendants. Inquiries were made for it in 
quarters where it was thought most likely to be found, but without suc- 
cess, and it was accordingly stated (page 49) that it was " not known to 
be now in existence." 

Mr. Dawson in his criticism undertakes to show the inaccuracy of the 
Society's publication by comparing it with what he Q.nWa '' the original 
minutes., as left by the Secretary who wrote them,'" but he does not state the 
form in which these " original minutes'''' have been preserved, or how or 
where he obtained them, or give any description of them, or specify any 
evidence of their authenticity. As the Society's publication shows that 
it was made from copies, because no originals could be found, and as Avhat 
he claims as the original minutes must have come recently into his hands, 
it would seem to have been no more than fair for him to give some ac^ 
count of his newly discovered manuscript, before condemning others for 
not following it, and thus also enabling others, as well as himself, to forn) 
an opinion of what his new discovery really was, and to judge of the credit 

*Hist. Mag., Vol, 10, Supplement, 199 ; Vol. 1, New Series, 184 ; Vol. 5, 34r,-7 and 399-401 ; Vol. 7, 137. 



Vohcnie First Vindicated. 5 

(o wliicli it was ciititlpd. Iliiiight possibly turn out lliat Mr. Dawson 
lias not in his possession '*the ori<;iual minutes" of any of these conven- 
tions, hut only f0j)ies, — perhaps only the same book from wliich Judge 
Phelps copied, — the entries in which were certitied — not as '' orUjinal 
minutes,'''' but as coiiies, — sometimes with the words '"Errors excepted," as 
may be seen in the Society's publication at pages l.'{, 15, K), •20, ."54, ."{7, 42. 
But whatever may be the character of the manuscript by which Mr. Daw- 
son calls in question the correctness of the Society's publication, it will 
be found on examination that several of the most important defects which 
he names have no existence in point of fact, and that the residue of them 
are so trivial and harmless as to preclude any idea, in an uni)rejudiced 
mind, that they could have been made for any sinister purpose whatever, 
much less for that which Mr. Dawson supposes, of enhancing the credit 
of Vermont at the expense of New York. In an account of some twenty 
different conventions held during a period of twelve years from 1765 to 
1777, which covers over fifty pages of tlie volume and includes the names 
of more than two hundred different persons, many of them several times 
repeated, the industry of the critic has enabled him to discover three or 
four instances in which he claims that either the christian or surname of 
an individual is wrongly given, and nearly as many in which he says the 
day of the proper month is erroneously stated, but none of them changing 
the character of the proceedings in the smallest degree. These, and such 
like errors, which may be found in almost all publications and even in the 
critic's own article, — all of which would have been readily accounted for 
by any impartial reader, as innt)cent mistakes of the copyist or of the type, 
with other charges which are unfounded in fact, — make up his indictment 
against the Society for fraud in their publication. 

Mr. Dawson, after stating that "a merely casual glance at the recon- 
structed record has satisfied us [him] that it is entirely unreliable as ma- 
terial for histor}^" jiroceeds to specify what he terms the "more import- 
ant errors, in this very important jiorfion of the volume" of the Society, 
under separate and distinct heads, fourteen in number, each of which we 
will now proceed to notice in its order. We shall be obliged to occupy 
more space in the investigation than we could desire, from tlie necessity 
we feel of copying most of the critic's complaints in full, that we may not 
be accused of doing him injustice in staling them, as well as to exhibit 
to our readers the temjier, or, as the lawyers would call it, the quo animo 
of his i)roducti()n. 

We give Specification No. 1 as near as may l)e, rerhatim et literatim, 
{US follows: 

'•1. — The Warrent for the lii-st miH'tiiig, dated, according to this ver- 
sion, ''Arlingtox, 10th Deer. 1775" was really dated •'AiiLiNUTON, 20th 
Deer. 1775;" and the third aiticlt^ of the same AVarrent, instead of i)ro- 
viding ''To see if the Law of New York shall have free circulation where 
" it doth infringe on our properties, or Titles of Lands, or lliots (so called) 



6 Vermont Historical Society Collections. 

"in (lefemu of the same," as indicated in this volume, really provided "to 
"see if the J^aw of New York shall have free circulation where it doth not 
"infringe" Ac. a distinction with a dilference, which will be useful to those 
who shall study the temi^er of the Vermoutese of that period, with due 
attention." 

The convention, of \\iuch the notice in the warrant dated at Arlington 
was given, was to be holden at Dorset the 16th of January 1776, and it 
was certainly of no moment whatever, whether it bore date the lOth or 
the 20th of December, and in regard to the other supposed error com- 
plained of by Mr. Dawson, we fail to see what " the distinction with a 
diflerence" can possibly be. No question depending on the language of 
the article respecting " the free circulation" of the la^y of New York ap- 
pears to have been voted upon. The convention resulted in a petition to 
the continental Congress, to be allowed, for the preservation of their land 
titles, to serve against Great Britain, under the Congress, as inhabitants 
of the New Hampshire Grants, and not under New York, of which peti- 
tion the critic afterwards takes special notice. The omission of the word 
not in the Society's publication, if it really was an omission, was doubt- 
less an error of the copyist or the printer, and would have been so re- 
garded by any one not anxiously seeking a pretext for fault finding. 

No. 2. — Under this specitication Mr. Dawson charges that Oliver 
Evits and not Oliver Everts was an " assistant clerk of the convention of 
January 16, 1775," and that it was James Hard and not James Hurd who 
" served on the committee to whom the third Article in the Warren^ was 
referred." "Well, it may be that Mr. Dawson is right. Both the assist- 
ant clerk and the committee man were persons unknown to fame, and it 
is impossible now to ascertain exactly how they wrote their names, for to 
this day Everts, Hard and Hu7-d are names of many families in Vermont, 
and Evits is rarely, if indeed ever, used except incorrectly for Everts; 
but what shall be thought of a critic who shall gravely found a charge of 
fraud against respectable persons, on the discovery of so slight a varia- 
tion in the spelling of the names of two obscure individuals, who had 
probably been dead for more than half a century. 

If we were to follow the example of the critic in cavilling at trifles, we 
might call his attention to errors of date and of spelling in that part of his 
own article already noticed, of as great significance as those he charges up- 
on the Society's publication. Thus, in his second specification, he speaks 
of the meeting at Dorset of wdiich the before mentioned notice had been 
given, as having been held "the 16th day of January 177.5," when in fact 
it was not held till January 177^, one year after, wdiich is quite as impor- 
tant an error as that complained of by him in the alleged change of date 
from the 20th to the 10th of December. Again, in his two first specifica- 
tions he uses three times a word which we have not been able to find in 
any modern dictionary in our possession, viz. the word Wiirrent. We 



Volume First Vindicated. 7 

suppose Mr. Dawson wrote the word Warnuii, with tho letter a in thc^ 
last syllable, and that tlu^ heedless typesetter ehanged it into an e, three 
times repeated, which makes it quite as great a blunder as the supj)osed 
change of the name ofllord to Ilurd by mistaking the letter a for the let- 
ter w. We .are not so uncharitable as fo charge Mr. Dawson wilh inten- 
tional fraud in this matter. 

Charge No. 3 is, that in the Petition to Congress which was adopted 
at the January convention of 177(i before mentioned, the order of the 
King in Council making Connecticut River the boundary between New 
York and New nam])shire was recorded in the minutes of the convention 
"as of the date of the 4th of July A. D. 170-4"; but that in the Society's 
"'reconstructed minutes" the date is given as the ^Oih of July 1704. We 
do not l)elieve the date was recorded as of the 4th of July in the orujinal 
minutes, but if it were, it was clearly a clerical mistake, which ought at 
once to be corrected. The official certified copy of the order which was 
sent out from England to Lieutenant Governor Colden, and which he 
published to the settlers by proclamation the 10th of April 1705, is found 
in the office of the Secretary of State at Albany, in volume 92 of Colonial 
Manuscripts at page 122. Copies of it are in the 4th volume of the Doc- 
umentary History of New York at page 574; in volume 3 of Belknap's 
New Hampshire, page 389; and in Slade's Vermont State Papers, page 
19,— all with the date of July 20, 1704. That date is also given in all 
histories that treat of the matter. The date of the declaration of Ameri- 
can independence might as well be stated to have been the 20th of July, 
as that of the king's order to have been the 4th of that month. 

The next specification of Mr. Dawson is as follows: 

" 4. — In the same Petition and Remonstrance, reference was made, as 
duly recorded by the Clerk of the Convention, on the Minutes of the Con- 
vention, reference was made to the aggregate l)ody of " Land Traders" 
whom the Vermontese were then resisting: in the reconstructed Min- 
utes, by interpolating the words " of New York," those who have con- 
trolled the volume before us have managed to secure a new weapon for 
their use, in their contest with the phantoms, from Nem York\ which 
have so long haunted them." 

The words "reference was made" seem to have been interpolated in this 
specification. Should not Mr. Dawson call somebody to account for this 
act of re-construction ? If the reader will examine the publication com- 
l)lained of, he will find that the phrase "Land Traders of New York" is 
used three times in the Petition, twice on page 17 and once on page IS. 
In the first instance, ''the MonopoUziwj Land Traders of JSfeir YorF' are 
charged with being instrumental,— after the petitioners had obtained and 
settled on grants from New Hampshire, — in procuring the king's order 
of July 1764 changing their jurisdicticn to Ncav York. In the second 
place, that " the Land Traders of Nevi York Petitioned the then Uorernor 



8 Vermont Historical Society Collections. 

of that Promnce for <jrants of Land,''^ and obtained grants of land occu- 
pied by the petitioners. In the third instance, the petitionel's speak of 
" the unhappy disputes ivhich have happened, between those Land. Traders^ 
of New York'''' and the petitioners. Tlie words above given in Italics are 
exact quotations from the petition. 

The pith and substance of this complaint (No. 4) is, that by inserting 
the words '•'■ of New YorF' after those of " Land Traders," one time too 
wian?/, '' those who have controlled the volume" have constructed "a new 
weapon" with which to combat New Yoi'k. It must be a sufficient an- 
swer to this complaint, that the loeapon^ whether useful or not in a fight 
with New York, is by no means a new one, but is a weapon that was in 
existence a long time before the Society's publication was thought of. 
In Blade's Vermont State Papers, published in 1823, pages 61 to (M, the 
Petition will be found with the words " Land Traders of New York" in- 
serted three times precisely as in the Society's publication. The petition 
is also printed in the Eural Magazine, published at Eutland, by Dr. 
Samuel Williams, for the month of May 1795, (Vol. 1, p. 259,) with the 
obnoxious words " of New York" following " Land Traders" in all the 
places where it is found in the Society's volume. The complaint there- 
fore of the critic, that " those who have controlled the volume before us 
have managed to secure a 7iew weapon for their use, in their contest with 
the phantoms from Nexo York,''"' is altogether unfounded, the weapon be- 
ing at least seventy-five years old. 

It seems not a little remarkable that Mr. Dawson, who had the State 
Papers of Mr. Slade before him, while he was preparing his criticism, as 
will hereafter be seen, should have failed to look into the Petition in that 
volume. If he had done so he would have seen that the Society's Com- 
mittee had nothing to do in constructing the supposed new weapon, and 
might thus have been spared the unpleasant duty of making a false charge 
against them. That he heedlessly neglected to notice so obvious a source 
for information on the subject, certainly cannot serve to strengthen any 
reputation he may now have for being a thorough and impartial searcher 
after historical truth. 

But there could be no motive whatever for '' those who controlled the 
volume" to insert the Avords of New York in. the manner complained of, 
for their insertion or omission could not alter the sense of the Petition in 
the slightest degree. Mr. Dawson has not condescended to state in 
which of the three places of the Petition the words " of New York" have 
been interpolated. It could not have been where the Land Traders were 
first mentioned, because it would have then been indispensable to state 
what Land Traders were intended, and the words "of New York" would be 
necessarily used. It could not have been in the second instance because 
the words " that Province," which follow " Land Traders" in the same sen- 
tence, could refer back to no other word but " New York," which must 
have been previously used. It must, then, have been in regard to the 



Vohnne First Vindicated. 9 

third in which the oltVuse was cliarged, and what is (he ofieiiscV It is 
tliis, that after the term "Land Traders of New York" Iiad l)een twice 
used in tlie Petition, Die same Land Traders Iiad in Mr. Dawson's man- 
uscript been designated as ''those Land Traders," and tliat the Connnit- 
tee had improperly added to '■'■ those Ijand Traders'' the obnoxious words 
''of New York." Every one will readily see that " those Land Traders" of 
Mr. Dawson were the identical " Land Traders of New York" which had 
})een previoush' mentioned, and that the additional words "of New 
York" did not and could not change the meaning of the language in the 
slightest degree. But if the additional words had l)een neiuli/ inserted, 
as charged by Mr. Dawson, the idea that they could in any way have 
been used as a "weapon" against New York must be set down as a mere 
''phantom" of the critic's own "haunted" imagination. 

Spkcification No. 5 is in the following words: 

" 5. — The official siffnatures of the Chairman and Secretary of the Dor- 
set Convention of the sixteenth of January, 1776, which this version of 
the Minutes presents, in the record of the same Petition and Remon- 
strance, at the foot of the nineteenth page of this volume, are not in the 
oriijinal Min)i(es, as left by the Secretary loho icrote them ; and, to those 
who are unacquainted with the facts, this strange error, of either the Ed- 
itors or the Printer of Ibis volume, will serve to destroy the usel'ulness 
of the entire entry, and to mislead those who are groping, in this dark 
subject, for the exact truth of the matter." 

The Italics in this quotation, as well as the capitals, are the critic's, not 
ours. Tn making this charge, Mr. Dawson must have forgotten to take 
even his " merely casual glance at the teachings of this reconstructed rec- 
ord," with which he conunenced his notice of it, for the charge is wholly 
without foundation in fact. The conclusion of " the Petition and Remon- 
strance" is, indeed, on the 19th page, but it ends with the words, " as in 
duty bound, your honors' petitioners shall ever pray," without any siejyin- 
tures whatever — " official " or otherwise. It is followed, near "• the foot of 
the nineteenth page," by the proceedings of the convention which adopted 
it, which proceedings are concluded and certitied towards the middle of 
the succeeding page. The publication, in this respect, is entirely with- 
out error. The proceedings of the convention of January l(j, 1776, are 
given precisely as found in Slade's State Papers and in the Rural Maga- 
zine before referred to, and word for word as copied by Judge Phelps 
from the manuscript before described, and which is presumed to be that 
which is now in the possession of Mr, Dawson. We venture to say that 
if he will allow the Society's publication to be compared with his own 
manuscript, it will l)e found to agi-ee with it verbatim et literatim. . 

If the absolute falsehood of this charge was not seen l)y Mr. Dawson, 
he at least made if without any examination into its truth, and with a 
heedlessness of the reputation of others which cannot entitle him to any 
special commendation as a model of historical research and fairness, lie 
must at least be content to accept for himself the sentence he so flippantly 
2 



10 Vermont Historical Society Collections. 

pafised upon the Editors, and admit that this "stt-ange error" of his should 
"serve to destroy the usefulness" and credit of his "entire" article. 

The follovvino- is the next Specification in order: 

•'0. — The interpolation of a line, assigning a motive for the sudden at- 
tempt of Ileman Allen to withdraw the insurgents' Petition and Remon- 
strance from before the C-ontinental Congress, was simply a piece of im- 
pertinence on the part of the Editors and is a fraud on those who shall 
read these re-constructed Minutes : there is no such reason assigned, in 
the i*eal Minutes, as Avritten by the Secretary of the Convention." 

Doubtless a reader of these strictures of the critic would infer from his 
language that the Editors he mentions had inserted in their publication 
certain words which did not belong there, in such a manner as to give 
their readers to iniderstand that they formed a part of the original journal. 
They have done no such thing. They have inserted words between 
In-ackets — [thus]— as an indication that perhaps an omission had l)een 
made in the journal, which those words would supply. This practice is 
quite too common to deceive any one. It is indeed always understood to 
amoimt to a statement that the words thus included in brackets do not 
form a part of the text, and it is presumed that few persons other than 
Mr. DaAvson — and he perhaps only in an emergency — would think of 
founding a charge of fraud upon it. 

Heman Allen had been charged with the iiresentation of the petition 
of the 16th of January 1776 to Congress, and his account of his proceed- 
ings with it was entered on the journal of the convention of the 24th of 
July following. His statement of the withdrawal of the petition, thus en- 
tered, closed with the words, " the Petition not being ready at hand at 
that time," which seemed inconsistent with the fact of its withdrawal. 
On recurring to the journal of Congress it was found that that body, on 
the 4th of June 1776, passed a resolution in relation to it as follows: 

'■'■Besolved that Ileman Allen have leave to withdraw the petition by him 
delivered in behalf of the inhabitants of the ISTew Hampshire Grants, he 
rejivesenting that he Ilus left at home some papers and vouchers, necessary to 
support the allerjations therein contained.^' 

It ])robably occurred to the " Editors" that it was " the papers and 
vouchers" mentioned in the resolution of Congress, rather than the Pe- 
tition, which were "not at hand," and for that reason words to such eftect 
were inserted in brackets, when the con<;lusion of Mr. Allen's account 
would be as follows : 

[Some papers and vouchers necessary to support the allegations in] "the 
Petition not being ready at hand at that time." 

For this suggestion in brackets, reference was made to the proceedings 
of Congress on the subject in Slade's State Papers and the Early History 
of Vermont, so that every reader might know on what authority it was 
made and judge for himself what credit ought to be given to it. It is of 
very slight importance whether the suggestion be considered as entitled 



Volume First Vindicated. 11 

to credit OP nut. It is l)iit ;i mere siingt'stioii and ct'ilainly furnislics no 
jjround on which to jirodieate a charge of fraud. 

Sl'KClFlCATION No. 7. — lu tile i)rocei'dini;s of the Doi-set convention 
of Sept. "J.-), 177<), which covt-r ten i)ages of the .Society's i)nhlieation, in 
wlncli tlie names of lift^-one nienil>ers and of thirt\-live towns which they 
represented are given, Mr. Dawson ha.s been able to find barely one 
grave error, and it is this, that Mr. Abraham Ives, instead of representing 
Wallingford, really represented N. AVallingford. He ainiounces his im- 
portant discovery of this oftensive act of reconstruction in the following 
grave language : 

'•7. — In the Dorset Convention of the twenty-lifth of .Se])tember, L77(>. 
•'M'" Abraham Ives*' reall}' represented "iV. Wallingford," wherever that 
town may have been; wot ^^ Wallim [for d,'" ii>^ these re-constructed Min- 
uteti would have us suppose.'' 

Well, all we can say about it is that we have heard of but one tovvnshi[) 
of Wallingford in Vermont, and that in the list of members and towns of 
this convention in Slade's State Papers, (p. 66,) and also in a similar list 
in the Rural Magazine, published in 170."), (Vol. 1, ;3(»U.) Mr. Abraham 
Ives is made to represent Wallingford precisely as in the Society's jiubli- 
cation, and not N. Wallingford. As our critic requires N. Wallingtbrd 
to Ite represented, '■"wkerecer that town may have been,'' it seems he would 
have us suppose that Vermont was honored on th^it occasion by a carpet- 
bagger from some other state. Somewhat careless work this, for a ci'itic 
in history. 

Tlu' seven remaining speciiications of error discoveri'd by Mr. Dawson 
relate to the convention of January loth, 1777, at which (he independence 
of the New Hampshire Grants was declared. At the connnencement 
of the journal of this convention as given in the Society's publication 
(p. 37,) it Avas stated that a part was taken from Slade's State Papers and 
tiie residue from the manuscript furnished by Judge Phelps. Ira Allen 
was the clerk of the convention, and the maimscript of Dr. Fay, from 
which Judge Phelps copied, does not puri)ort to have been recorded ))y 
Dr. Fay, but to be a coiji/ from that of Ira Allen, as may bi' seen at p. 42. 
Judge Phelps did not copy from Dr. Fay's manuscript that portion of the 
l)roceedings which had been printed in Slade, but made notes of the 
points in which he saw Ihey varied, and from his notes a few supposed 
errors of the tyjie in Slade weie corrected. In a single instance, of no 
great imj)ortance, the text in the State Papers was prefcrri'd to the copy 
of Dr. Fay, for reasons which will be given hereafter. 

In further proof of the supposed dishonest purposes of the P>ditors of 
the Society's publication, Mr. Dawson insists that they have made two 
men represent one town in the convention, when in reality they were the 
representatives of /(/;o— each of a sej^arate town. This grave charge is 
introduced as follows: 



12- Vermont Historical Society CoUedions. 

"(S. — In the Westminster Convention of Jnnnary 15, 1777, this version 
of the Minutes of tlmt body would hnve ns believe tl)at " Lt. Leonard 
Spaulding" and "Lt. Dennis Loekland" jointly represented "Dnmmers- 
ton,'' and that the town of "Putney" was not represented in that Con- 
vention, by any one: the fiict is, that "Dunniierston'' had only one Dide- 
gate — "Lieut Leonard Spalding" — ; that "Putney" was represented in 
the Convention; and that "Lieut Dennis Loekland" was her Delegate, 
instead of Dunimerston's." 

We are very glad Putney as well as Dumnierston was represented in 
this convention. It adds to its importance by showing that a larger 
number of towns participated in making the declaration of inde])endence 
than had been supposed. Thanks to the critic for furnishing the " Ver- 
montese" with this "new Aveaj^on for their use in the contest with the 
l)hantoms from New York." The error in the publication was copiiul 
from Slade's State Papers, where we sup])Ose it must have been innocently 
made, by either the copyist or the printer. Lest Mr. Dawson's authority 
be doubted, Ave add that in this case he has stated the fact. The Ver- 
mont Almanac and Register for 1795, printed at Windsor by Alden 
S])Ooner, confirms Mr. DaAvson's statement. 

Specification No. 9 chai-ges that Joseph Williams and not "Josiah" 
AVilliams represented Pownal in this convention, Avhich is doubtless true, 
as we find the name given as Major Joseph Williams by both Slade and 
Spooner. "Josiah" was a Avrong reading of the manuscript copy, not 
chargeable to the Editors. 

Mr. Dawson's next Specification is as folloAvs : 

"10. — The re-constructed Minutes of the same Convention i)resent a 
formal introduction of seven lines, to the Report on what is, in fact, A^er- 
mont's Declaration of Independence — certainly, as far as Vermont is con- 
cerned, an instrument of the first importance, as material for history — 
the original Minutes of the Convention itself, which constitute the origi- 
nal record of the paper, presented no such introductory matter, nor any 
other — our friends of the Committee to the contrary notwithstanding." 

It was stated bj' the Committee at the commencement of the proceed- 
ings of this convention of January 1777, at page 37, that the part of the 
journal, which is here complained of, was copied from Blade's State Pa- 
pers, and if Mr. DaAVSon looked into the declaration of independence as 
printed in that volume, he must have found those seven lines precisely 
as in the Society's publication. He was not a stranger to Mr. Slade's 
work. In his subsequent specification, No. 12, he speaks of Mr. Slade's 
"well known Vermont State Papers," and proceeds at once to make an 
important quotation from that work. The first six lines of the quotation 
are from the same page (r59) on which the above "formal introduction" com- 
plained of is printed. We are, therefore, justified in assuming that Mr. 
Dawson did know, very Avell kncAV, that his proscribed introductory mat- 



Vohitne Fii-f't indicated. 18 

trr liM<l IxM'ii ill print in that "well known'' work lor ikmiIv lit'h' years. 
Hnl witli (his kiiowledtio lie chose to fireat the origin of those seven lines 
as a mystery, and to speak of them as if his "friends of the Committee" 
had snrreptitiously foisted them, for some sinister purpose, into their vol- 
ume. He asserts positively, that "the original minutes of the conven- 
tion presented no such introductory matter." We deny his authority 
thus to speak. "We deny that he has in his possession the oriyinul min- 
utes of this convention, and therefore controvert his assertion that the in- 
troductory matter was not in the original luiiiules. We conlidently 
helieve it was there, and shall continue in that belief until Mr. Dawson 
jiroves the contrary by the production of the original minutes. 

We sujijxjse the manuscript, which Mr. Dawson calls the original min- 
utes, is the book of Dr. Fay which was seen and copied by .Judge IMieljis 
as before stated. Of this convention of .Taiuiary 1777, Ira Allen and not 
Dr. Fay was the Clerk, and at the end of its proceedings in Dr. Fay's 
book, as copied by Judge Phelps and printed in the Society's volume, 
page 42, it is certified, not as the original minutes, but as ''A true copy 
from the original.'' 

The introductor}^ matter complained of is in the following words: 

" To the honorable convention of rejjresentatives from the several toionson 
the ivest and east side of the range of Green 3Iountains, loitkin the New- 
Hampshire Grants, in convention assembled : 

Your committee, to whom was referred the form of a declaration set- 
ting forth the right the inhabitants of said New Hampshire Grants have 
to form themselves into a separate and independent state, or govern- 
ment, beg leave to report, viz. :" 

That these introductory words were in the report as originally made to 
the convention, there can be no reasonable doubt, and we think as little 
that they would be copied into the journal, as was the introductory mat- 
ter to the report of another committee on the next page of the journal. 
This " formal introduction '' is found in a copy of the proceedings jiub- 
lished as long ago as 1823. It seems much more likely that they were 
omitted by Dr. Fay in his copy from Ira Allen's minutes, either by ac- 
cident or from the belief that they might be properly left out, than that 
any one had undertaken to prepare them without authority to be insei- 
ted in Mr. Slade's jjublication. They were, indeed, merely formal, and 
do not alter the meaning of the proceedings in any degree whatever, and 
why Mr. Dawson, even if he had been ignorant of their antiquity, should 
undertake to magnify their insertion in the Society's volume into an of- 
fence against historical integrity, is a question which he alone can solve. 

The next Chakoe of Ri<X'OXSTIU ction is as follows: 

"•11. — In the same important instrument, as originally recorth'd, a most 
imjiortant extract from the Journals of the Continental Congress, certified 
by the Secretary of that Congress, was introduced, as the foundation of the 
(jonvention's jn'oposed action on that subject; in the reconstructed Min- 



14 Vermont. Historical Society Collections. 

utes, the record of that resolution is changed in its terms, and the verifica- 
tion of the Secretary is altogether omitted — a curious and significant co- 
incidence." 

The part of the Society's work, here complained of, is copied literally 
from Slade's State Papers without diminution or addition, as Mr. Dawson 
well knew, and if it contains evidences of " reconstruction," he also knew 
they were of too great antiquity to l)e chargeahle to the committee of pub- 
lication. The " important extract from the Journals of the Continental 
Congress" is the resolution of that body of May 15, 1776, which is copied 
from Slade in the following words: 

Besolved^ That it be recommended to the respective assemblies and 
conventions of the United Colonies, where no government sufficient to 
the exigencies of their affairs, has been heretofore established, to adopt 
such government as shall, in the opinion of the re])resentatives of the 
peoi)le, best conduce to the happiness and safety of their constituents in 
particular, and of America in general." 

Mr. Dawson's charge is quite indefinite, but on thorough examination 
we are satisfied it can be no other than the discovery by him, after dili- 
gent search, that the word heretofore which precedes the word established, 
in the resolution, and which is thus copied from Slade, is jDrinted hitherto 
in the Journal of Congress. We are unable to find any other change in 
tlie terms of the resolution. To be sure this does not make the slightest 
change in the meaning of the resolution, the governments which had 
been ''heretofore established" behig those and those only which had been 
'•hitherto established." But Mr. Dawson considers this altogether harm- 
less change made in print nearly fifty years ago, which there could never 
have been any motive for making, and which could not have been other- 
wise than accidental, as of sufficient importance to sustain a charge of a 
dishonest purpose in "his friends of the committee. " The committee 
he would insinuate wickedly changed the terms of the resolution by sub- 
stituting the word heretofore for hitherto^ and then to soften their condem- 
nation if detected, suppressed the Secretary's verification of the resolu- 
tion, which is in Slade (77,) but not in the report quoted from Slade (69). 
These two acts, Ave suppose, constitute the pith and point, if there be any, 
of the ^ curious and significant coincidence " with which his charge con- 
cludes ; and all this, when Mr. Dawson had full knowledge that the com- 
mittee had nothing to do in originating tlie changes of which he complains. 
He must have been extremely anxious to discover an occasion for fault 
finding, oi- he could never have resorted to so flimsy a pretense for it. 

Charge No. 12. — Mr. Dawson in his specification No. 12 makes a quo- 
tation of some length from the declaration of independence of the New 
Hanij)shire Grants, as printed in Mr. Slade's work, which he styles Mr. 
Slade's '' well known Vermont State Papers," to show that the new State 
was therein called "New Connecticut alias Vermont," and he also refers 
to the beforementioned manuscript, from whicli Judge Phelps copied, as 



Volume First Vindicated. 15 

containing tho sjimc tAvo names, in wliich ho is doubtloss correct. In 
the copy in tlio Society's volunio the \vnvd< alias Vermont were omitted, 
iuid in their jilace were inserted two brackets, and between them was a 
space sufficient to contain the words, witl) a reference to a lool-note, 
thus — [ ' ] — which note was as follows: 

'•Here in the copy in Slade's State Papers the words alias Vermont are 
inserted; but that tliey could not have l)een in the oriijinal declaration 
upi)ears from the subsequent use of the name New Connecticut alone, 
and from the jjroceedings in tlu' convention of the 4th of June following, 
where the name was changed to Vermonl. /. AUen\<i Verrnont. it. 7'.». aiid 

//. ihavs n., p. -i;}!), 'iwir 

Mr. Dawson discovei'S, in this suggestion of eri-or in the two copies of 
the declaration, a very great outrage. He says that both the before-men- 
tioned copies — from Slade and Phelps — were " before the ('ommittee 
when it issued this reconstiiicted record ; and we confess," he says, -'we 
are not acquainted with the i)rinciple which warranted the Committee, in 
the face of the two distinct copies of the original, to not only omit from 
its version of the Minutes the words " alias Vermont,'''' but to discredit the 
fidelity of the only text which it employed, by doubting the existence of 
the words elsewhere," and he concludes his condemnation of this act of the 
Committee, with the sad reflection that '■'■ Such is Vermont histori/, as writ- 
ten by Vermont hisiorians.'''' There was certainly no attempt of the ('om- 
mittee in this case to practice a deception in regard to the nani(>, and what- 
ever may be thouglit of the ci'edit to which their suggestion — that the alias 
Vermont was not in the original declaration — is entitled, it is presumed 
there are few persons besides Mr. Dawson who will be disposed to treat 
it as furnishing ground for any special stigma upon Vermont or Vermonl 
historians. 

We will now proceed to give, as brietly as we can, some reasons for the 
])elief that the Avords alias Vermont were not in thg original declaration. 
In the language found in the Vermont State Papers and quoted by Mr. 
Dawson, the territory of the New Hampshire Grants " is hereby declared 
Ibrever hereafter to be considered as a separate, free,^ and independent 
jurisdiction or state ; by the name, and forever hereafter to be called, 
known and distinguished h>/ tite name of New Connecticut, alias Vermont.'" 
The idea that the convention should solemnly resolve and enter on their 
record of the formation of a new state tor all time, that it should forever 
thereafter have and be called by two names, or by either of two, as any 
and every person pleased, is, certainly, in a very high degree improbable. 
We suppose it more probal)le that the first name of the state was New 
Connecticut only, and that after the name had been changed to Vermont, 
the words alias Vermont were added by way of exjilanation that New 
Connecticut had become Vermont, and without the expectation that tlie 
added words would be treated as part of the original i-ecord. That 
the "alias Vermont" could not have been in the original declaration 



16 Vermont Historical Society Collections. 

seems to be very clearly indicated by the evidence referred to in the fore- 
going note, which we will now introduce: 

I. — The declaration was adopted by the 10th vote of the convention, 
after which New Connecticut is twice given in the Journal as the name 
of the State, and no further mention is made of Vermont, — thus: 

"12th. Voted., That the Declaration of Netv Connecticut be inserted in 
the newsi^ajiers. 

" 13th. Voted, That Captain Heman Allen, Col. Thomas Chandler, and 
JiTathan Clark, Esq., be a committee to prepare the Declaration for the 
Press as soon as mav be. 

" 14th. Voted., Tliat Doct. Jonas Fay, Col. Thomas Chittenden, Doct. 
Reuben Jones, Col. Jacob Bailey and Capt. Heman Allen be the Dele- 
gates to carry the Remonstrance and Petition to the Hon. Continental 
Congress and further to negotiate business in behalf of ISfeio Conneeti- 
ctiV — Vt. Hist. Collections, vol. 1, p. 41. 

II. — The revised declaration, as prepared for the press in pursuance of 
the 13th vote of the convention, was published in the Connecticut Conr- 
ant for March 17, 1777, which revised declaration concludes in these 
words, "The said State hereafter to be called by the name of JSfew Con- 
necticut.'''' — Ihid, 15. 47. 

III. — The Januai-y convention of 1777 adjourned to meet at Windsor 
the 4th day of the following June. The proceedings of this convention 
commence as follows: 

" New Hampshire Grants (alias J \ 

New Connecticut; ) Windsor, June 4th, 1777. 

"Convention opened according to adjournment,'" &c. — Tbid, j). 48. 

The following are extracts from the Journal of the further proceedings . 
of this convention; which were altogether inconsistent with the supposi- 
tion that the name Vermont could have been in any way used at its pre- 
vious meeting: 

" State of Vermont, } 

In General Convention, Windsor, June 4, 1777. ) 

" Whereas this convention did at their session in Westminster, the 15th 
day of January last, among other things declare the district of land com- 
monly called and known by the name of the New Hampshire Grants to 
be "a free and independent state capable of regulating their own inter- 
nal police in all and every respect whatsoever, and that it should thereaf- 
ter he hnovm hy the name of Nexo Connecticut: ***** 
* * and Whereas., this convention have been informed that a dis- 
trict of land lying on the Susquehanna river, has been heretofore and is 
now known by the name of New Connecticut, which was unknown to 
them until sometime since the declaration at Westminster aforesaid ; 
and as it would be inconvenient in many respects for two separate dis- 
tricts on this continent to have the same name : 

Besolved, Therefore, unanimously, that the said district described in 
the preamble to the declaration at Westminster, aforesaid, shall now 
hereafter be called and known by the name of Vermont." — Ihid, p. 50. 

Afterwards at the same convention the question was proposed whethei- 
the members Avould proceed to business on the former declaration at 
Westminster, " with this alteration only, that instead of Weiv Connecticut 



Volume First VindUa^ed, 17 

tlm said district should ever be knoica by the name 0/ Vkkmont,"' and it was 
voted by tlie sovcnt}' -one members present in tbe affirmative. — Ibid. p. 51. 
Tbe otticial proeeedini;;s of tbese two conventions, of Jaiuiary and June 
1777. seem conclusively to sbow tliat the first name given to the state 
must have been Neir Connertirvt only, and that afterwards the name 
Vermont wixa substituted for it. 

IV. — Further, Ira Allen, wIki. a> we have seen, was clerk ol the .Janu- 
ary convention at wliich this declaration of independence was made, gives 
in his History of Vermont the substance of it in nearly the same lan- 
guage as it is in Slade's State Paiiers, in which it is declared that the 
state is "to be forever hereafter called, known and distinguished by the 
name of New Connecticitt," without any mention of Vermont. Mr. Al- 
len also afterwards says that the name ]'ermont was given to the State 
by Dr. Thomas Young of Phila(leli)liia, and that the delegates of the Jan- 
uary convention, who had been appointed to present their declaration to 
the Continental Congress,— " Fay, Chittenden, Allen and Jones, — re- 
turned from Congress, without the decision of that bod}' on their petition 
in behalf of the inhabitants, and brought with them Dr. Young's letter 
printed and published at Philadelphia, addressed to the inhabitants of 
Vermont." — Allen's Vt., 7S>, 8(), and Vt. Hist. Collections, vol. 1, ."$75, .'{79. 

The true history of the change of name is doubtless the following : 
When the delegates arrived at Philadelphia they learned that the name 
New Connecticut had already been appropriated for another territor}-, 
and saw the necessity' of changing it. On consultation with Dr. Y''oung 
they approved of his recommendation of the name Vermont, and agreed 
to favor its adoption. In their petition to Congress, Avhich was presented 
the 8th of April 1777, they did not therefore mention any name for their 
new state. Doct. Y'oung's letter, with which they returned to Vermont, 
bore date the 11th of April 1777. AH the delegates were members of 
the following June convention, and participated in making the change 
of the name of the state from New- Connecticut to Vermont agreeablv 
to their previous understanding with Dr. Young. 

We have perhaps occupied more space in the consideration of this 
question tlian it deserved. It has nothing w'hatever to do with the old 
controversy between New York and Vermont, for as regarded that, the 
name assumed by the new state was quite immaterial. We are unable to 
account for Mr. Dawson's hot indignation at the innocent suggestion of 
the committee of publication in this matter, but upon the sujiposition — 
which indeed derives support from what he has long been attempting — 
that he considers himself engaged in a mission to discredit and condemn 
all Vermont history whatever. 

We trust sutHcient evidence has been adduced to show that the sugges- 
tion that the first name of the new state was New Connecticut, without 
an alias, was not rashly and inconsiderately made. 



IK Vermont Historical Soeiety Collections. 

Mr. Dawson's 13th Complaint is as follows: 

"■13. — The latter part of the Report or Declaration of Vermont's Inde- 
pendence, is so perfectl_y muddled — there are not less than live serious 
errors, atfecting the sense, within the last six lines — that no one except an 
expert in Vermont history, can possibly understand it accurately.'' 

The language in the Society's volume is the same as in Shade's State 
Pa2)ers, and as we are unable to discover the "five serious errors" spoken 
of, we pass over this specification withtut further notice. 

The final crushing Charge of Recoxstrvction is as follows: 

" 14. — ^Messrs. John Sessions and Simeon Stephens were the two Rep- 
resentatives from Cumberland County, in the convention of the State of 
Kew York, whom the insurgents in Vermont directed to withdraw from 
that body ; Messrs. John Sessions and Sioion Stephens, are said in this 
reconstructed record, to have thus otficiated as such Representatives, in 
the Legislature of New York, of which State Vermont was then a part." 

We take issue with Mr. Dawson and say, that Simeon Stephens was not 
a member of the New Y^'ork Convention, as asserted by him, but that Si- 
mon Stephens (or rather Simon Stevens^ as the latter name was usually 
spelled,) was. And for proof we refer him to volume 1, page 515, of the 
Journal of the New Y^ork Convention published at Albany in 18-12, where 
in the Journal for July 9, 1776, he will find the following entries, viz.: 

" The Deputies from Cumberland county attending, produced a certifi- 
cate, signed by James Clay, chairman of the county committee, and dat- 
ed at Westminster the 28th of June last ; whereby it appears that Colo. 
Joseph Marsh, Simon Stevens and John Stssions, have been duly elected 
to represent said County in this Congress, and invested with full powers 
of legislation, &c. 

Ordered. That the Deputies from Cumberland county take their seats." 

It appears also from B. H. Hall's History of Eastern Vermont, pages 
258, 263 and 787, that Simon and not Simeon Stevens was tlie delegate to 
the New York convention, whom the Vermont convention of January 
1777 "directed to withdraw from that body." B. H. Hall gave many par- 
ticulars in the life of Simon Stevens, and among them his residence in 
Springfield. Simon Stevens represented Springfield in the Vermont 
State Convention of January 1791, which adopted the Constitution of 
the United States. The delegates signed the resolution of adoption, and 
the original paper, with the autograph of Simon Stevens, is in the possession 
of one of the " Editors " of the Society's publication. So much for the 
overweening confidence of Mr. Dawson in Simeon Stephens, and in his 
own infallibility. 

We have now gone through with the examination of all the evidence 
brought forward Ijy Mr. Dawson to fasten upon tlie Vermont Historical 
Society the charge of undertaking to impose upon the pul)lic a false and 
fi-audulent account of the early proceedings of tlie people of their state, 
in order, as he would have his readers believe, that their conduct towards 



Volume First Vindicated. 10 

the government of New York, in their ancient controversy, might a})- 
pear in a more favorable light than the foots as they really existed would 
warrant. AV^' have seen that he has utterly failed to adduce a particle of 
proof to sustain the charge ; thai the most important of tiu- changes al- 
leged by him to have been made from what he calls " the original record," 
have no existence in jioint of fact, and that the residue are so trifling 
and insignificant as to preclude any supposition that they could have 
l)een made for any sinistei* i)urpose whatever, consisting of such changes 
as the substitution of one vowel for another in the sjielling of the first 
or second name of some unknown person ; by the use of one figure for 
another in a date of the month, or the omission or the insertion of an 
unimportant or synonimous word, which makes no alteration in the 
meaning — all of which changes any unprejudiced reader, if he noticed 
them, would at once have set down as accidental errors of the copyist 
or of the type — such errors indeed as an industrious critic might find 
in the most carefully prepared work — such as are, in fact, found in Mr. 
Daw.son's own criticism (juite as frequently as in the jiages of the Socie- 
ty's publication which he condemns. 

The hostile temper of Mr. Dawson towaids -tlu' Vermontese," anv? 
his predetermination to find something to comidain of against them, are 
as clearly exhibited in the language of his criticism, as its destitution of 
facts to sustain it is shown to have been. The standing program of his 
Magazine, which is printed on its covers, states that it will contain, 
among other things, '' Carejnlly prepureO^ and impartial notices of iVeto 
Books and Engravings, esjiecially those relating to the History^ Antiqui- 
ties or Biography, of America.'' If his present article on the volume 
of the Vermont Historical Collections is to be taken as a fair specimen 
of his "■' carefully prepared and imjiartial notices of new books, " the aid 
to be expected from this department of his Magazine in the elucidation 
of American history cannot be very great. 

After the full exposure which has been made of the fallacy of Mr Daw- 
son's criticism, it may be pleasant to read his concluding tirade against 
Vermont history and Vermont historians. It is as follows : 

" There arc many other errors which we have not space enough to al- 
lude to ; but we have said enough to show how entirely useless tiiis por- 
tion of the volume is, as anantltoriti/ in historical in(]uiry. It may serve 
th(! purpose for which it was prol)al)ly intended among those who read 
tiic history of Vermont from the Vermontese stand-point ; but to those 
who read history for the purpose of ascertaining what the truth is con- 
cerning those, within the recognized territory of New York, who refused 
obedience to the laws and public ollicers of the state of which they 
openly professed to be citizens — of those in fact, who led all others in 
the grave offence of secession from a recognized government, exercising 
legal and publicly-recognized authority over them, some other authority 
will be reciuisite. These, probably, will not be conteiitetl with either 
Vermont history or Vermont historians, as the former is uow written, 
and as the latter now write. " 



20 Vermont Historical Society Collections. 

This is not a proper occasion for discussing with Mr. Dawson the mer- 
its of the old controversy between \^ermont and N'ew York, which en- 
ded in the acknowledgement of the independence of the former by the 
latter. Mr. Dawson, as often as he has taken occasion to assail Vermont - 
ers and Vermont history, has never got beyond the argument that is 
implied in the above paragraph, that the Vermonters were criminally 
wrong, because they '' refused obedience to the law^s and public officers 
of the state of which they openly professed to be citizens. " It does not 
seem ever to have occurred to him that there might be an important 
question beyond ihat^ viz. : Whether the actual and threatened oppressions 
of the New York government were not such as to Justify their disobedience ? 
He does not appear to see that this question arises in the case of New 
York against Vermont precisely as it did between Great Britain and her 
colonies, and that Vermonters did not, as he states, take the lead of "-all 
others in the grave offence of secession from a recognized government, 
exercising legal and publicly-recognized authority over them," but only 
followed the example and lead of the American colonies in their seces- 
sion from Great Britain, — the secession of the colonies having taken place 
July 4, 1776, while tliat of Vermont did not occur until the following Janu- 
ary. In this and such like condemnation of the Vermonters, he merely 
repeats the argument of the old English Tories against the colonists, who 
equally with the Vermonters had refused obedience to the laws of a '' rec- 
ognized government" to which they acknowledged themselves to be leg- 
ally subjected. If Mr. Dawson should ever get beyond the point of calling 
the Vermonters hard names, and should undertake to show that the con- 
duct of the Kew York government, in endeavoring to deprive the Ver- 
mont settlers of the lands they had honestly purchased and improved, 
for the benefit of a set of New York city speculators, was right and just, 
and ought to have been submitted to, we shall be glad to see his evidence 
and read his argument. We are inclined to think he would find it rather 
an ugly business, and that he will not venture upon it. 

We are well aware that in any controversy with the Editor of the His- 
torical Magazine, we '\''ermonters stand on greatly unequal terms. His 
article is extensively circulated through the country, while this refuta- 
tion of it will be seen by comparativelj^ few persons. His hitherto un- 
ceasing hostility is not likely to be conciliated by this expose of the 
injustice ajid absurdity of his attacks, and we may expect a continuance 
of them, with perhaps increased violence. We shall probably be con- 
tent to rest under any further imputations he may cast upon us, without 
reply. His seemingly uncontrollable propensity to impugn the motives 
and assail the integrity, as well as to misrepresent the conduct and ar- 
guments of those who fail to concur in his opinions and share his antip- 
athies, must be well known to his readers, and we confidently trust they 
will be prepared to make due allowance for this unhappy weakness of his, 
and will estimate what he mav sav at just about its actual value. 



VERMONT HISTORICAL SOCIETY 

COLLECTIONS. 



f'o.^"rBA"rs oi^' )'oz. jj. 

VERMONT IJISTOKK AI. SOCIKTV: List otP:\nii)lik't I'llblicatioiis. Ollirfis. I871-.i. 

ADDITIONS AND CORUKCTIONS to Vols. I. ami II. of Cdllcctious : by Kl.I.VKIM P. 
WALTON. V-<)1. 1. Vindicated: by IIilam) II all. 

TIIK HALDIM.VNI) PAI'KRS: witli fo:iteini)oianeous History and Notes by Kliakim P. 
Waltox. PiOfatoiy Note. Introduction : The Conciliatory Policy ofCJreat Britain 
in 177S-9; Vermont prior to 1781— The Controversy witli New York— by IIiland 
Hall; Vermont's Appeals to Congress. 177r, to 1780; her Appeal from Conj;ress to 
the neighboring States ; the ( 'onditicni of Vermont and of the Country, March 177!) to 
.May 1781; Action of Vermont, Jan. 1780 to May 17S1 : Condition of New Vork, March 
1779 to May 1781 ; the Policy of Vermont. The llMl.liman.l Negotiation originated by 
British Agents: (iov. Chittenden proposes to Gen. Ilahlimand an e.xchange of pris- 
oners: Cessation of hostilities ollered by Gen. Hahlimand, Oct. 1780; Truce agreed 
to by Vermont, and Commissioners appointed to settle cartel for exchange of prison- 
ers;" Gen. Ilaldiniand instructs his Commissioners to negotiate for the return of Ver- 
mont to allegiance to Great Britain : Negotiations connnenced, May 8. 1781 ; Armis- 
tice with Vermont agreed to, May '2:., 1781. The Kast an<l We^t I'nions formed; 
Argument in justification; EtVe.t of the ITnions and the Ilaldiniand Negotiation 
on Congress: Dissolution of the Unions. Internal l)isturl)ances. War upon Ver- 
mont threatened by New York, New Hampshire, and Congress: (Jen. Washington 
opposed to War with Vermont. Last letter of Gen. Ilaldiniand to Vermont. Condi- 
[uin .if V ermont at tlie clo.sc of the Negotiation. 
()PINIONs"ftF THE llALDIMANI) NE(;OTIATION,-Notes In Klluu.M P. Walton: 
Ol.inions of Samuel Williams, William L. Stone, Daniel Chipman, and Jared Sparks, 
with references to opinions of William slade, Za.lock Thompson. B. II. Hall, and 

IIiland Hall. 

COMPLKTKNKSS OF THE HALDIMANI) PAPERS ON TIIK NE(;OTI ATION. 

VERMONT AS A SOVEREKiN AND INDEPENDENT STATE-178:! to 17!tl,-by El.IA- 
KIM P. Walton.— Prefatory Note. Action of (Jovernor ami Council and As.seinbly. 
Particulars implving SoveVeignty : Po.st-OOices (-tablished-Postmaster General 
appointe.l-Treaty-inaking Power, on Intercourse and Tra.ie with Canada and Eu- 
,.„pe— War with New York contemplated— Neutrality expected fnnn the other States 
and from Congres.s— Confederation with the United States invited— Coina.ue of Money 
aulhorized— Duty on nails proposed, to encourage manufacture in Vermont— Xat- 
uralization Act proposed, ami passed— Negotiation with >*e\\ York. The Vermont 
Question in Congress in 1784; Protest by Gov. Chittenden— Vermont amenable to no 
earthly tribunal. Ethan .Mien's defense of Vermont policy. The first Uctterment 
Act. Ob.stacles to Vermont in (;ongres.«. Action in New York Assembly in i787 
favorable to Vermont— Argument of Riclianl Harrison against Vermont— Ah-xandor 
Hamilton's reply to Harrison. Finances of X'ermont, 1778 to 1780. Settlement of the 
Controversy with New York— Correspondence of the Commissioners— Assent of New 
York to the admission of Vermont into the Cuion— Report of the Vermont Connnis- 
siouers- Acceptance and Ratilication by Vermont. Admission of Vermont into the 
Union. 

THE EARLY EASTERN BOUNDARY OF NEW YORE A TWENTY MILE LINE 
FROM THE HUDSON: by IIiland Hall -Representation thereof by the Council 
of New York in 17(>:5 to (;ov. Moncktou. Reply thereto to the Lords of Traile l)y 
Lieut. Gov. Colden. 

INDEX. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



/ 




013 984 960 7 4 



VEBMOXT HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 



OFFICERS OCTOBER 1870 TO OCTOBEa 1872. 

Pkesident, 
Rkv. WILLIAM H. LORD, I). I)., Montpelier. 

Vice Pkesidents. 
Hon. JAMES BARRETT, Woodstock. 
Hox. LOYAL C. KELLOGG, Benson, 
Rev. ROGER S. HOWARD, D. D., Xorthfield. 

Recording Secretaky, 
HENRY CLARK, Esq., Rutland. 

Corresponding Secretary. 
Hon. GEORCJE G. BENEDICT, Burlington. 

Treasurer. 
Col. HERMON D. HOPKINS, Montpelier. 

Librarian, 
Hon. CHARLES REED, Montpelier. 

Board of Curators, 
Hon. GEORGE NICHOLS, Northtield, ^ 

Hon. WHITMAN G. EERRIN. Montpelier, ^ Ex Officio. 
Hon. CHARLES REED, Montpelier, \ 

Dr. p. D. BRADFORD, Northtield, 
Rev. CHARLES S. SMITH, Montpelier, 
Hon. JOHN R. CLEAVELAND, Brookfield, 
ORYILLE S. BLISS, Esq., Georgia, 
Hon. RUSSELL S. TAET, Burlington, 
Cou. FRANKLIN FAIRBANKS. St. Jolmslnuy. 

STANDING COMMITTEES. 

Printing and rnhlisltiny. — Messrs. Hiuanf) Hall, North Bennington; 
Charles Reed, and Eliakim P. Walton, Montpelier. 

On the Librav}/ and CaW/JCf.— Messrs. Roger S. Howard, Nortlifield; 
Charles S. Smith, Montpelier; Russell S. Taft, Burlington. 

On Ffyfcmoe.— Messrs. Charles Dewey, and Chakles Reed, Mont- 
pelier; Franklin Fairbanks, St. Johnsbury. 




flS=-Doii!ili<)ns of M:uiii.s<Mii)ts, Books, PainpliletB, Newspapers, Ac, should be ad 
(Iressc.l to CHARLES REED, Librarian, Montpelier. 



^ 




/ 



